karthi-novice wrote:
i think "boys are more intrested in chess than girls"
You'd think with all the phallic shaped pieces, this would not be so true.
Ruth Haring: 'Girls are bad at chess'
Sort:
Jun 4, 2014
0
#63
JamieDelarosa wrote:
(Moderators - I am new here, so I hope I do not break any rules. If this is in the wrong spot, or improperly formatted, please edit it. Thanks, Jamie)
This is the link to IWM Ruth Haring's recent "Armchair Warrior" blog entry, entitled, "Girls are bad at chess."
http://xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/tag/ruth-haring/
Haring was one of the best of the American women players back in the 1970s and 1980s. She married GM Peter Biyiasas, and is/was President of the USCF (2011-?).
She wrote in her blog:
"I will leave it to others to judge just how good or bad girls are at chess and say only that I enjoy playing over games played by women, and in some cases, girls, because they are inferior to the games played by the best men chess players. I have also found enjoyment in watching women play golf and tennis even though they cannot compete with men."
If we look at ratings lists, tournament results, most individual encounters over-the-board, it is hard to argue with Harings conclusion.
However, Haring references a recent article from Scientific America by Prof. Daisy Grewal of Stanford University, who believes that OTB disparities between men and women in chess have more to do with a psychological phenomenon called "sterotype threat."
You can read the Scientific American article here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-girls-bad-at-chess/
Haring, I think makes a mistake when she compares male vs female chess results to male vs female athletic results. The human species is sexually dimorphic. I would expect men to run faster, jump higher, hit a ball further, etc, because men are, on average, larger and stronger than women. But does that dimorphism apply to intellect? ... and hence, to the potential to play an intellectual game? I think not.
Discuss.
Ruth Haring is NOT the Armchair Warrior!
She didn´t write what you are attributing to her.
http://xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/341/
Go easy on the brain cells.
kleelof wrote:
karthi-novice wrote:
i think "boys are more intrested in chess than girls"
You'd think with all the phallic shaped pieces, this would not be so true.
lol
Post #70: Oh ok, so it was just some random guy who wrote this blog.
SocialPanda wrote:
Ruth Haring is NOT the Armchair Warrior!
She didn´t write what you are attributing to her.
Sorry for harassing you.
Jun 4, 2014
0
#69
Elubas wrote:
Post #70: Oh ok, so it was just some random guy who wrote this blog.
Exactly, some random non-identified guy.
Bound to have been some insecure male couch potato who wrote it.
Jun 4, 2014
0
#71
SocialPanda wrote:
Ruth Haring is NOT the Armchair Warrior!
She didn´t write what you are attributing to her.
I messed that one up, huh? I will edit the opening post appropriately.
Glass-Spider wrote:
Bound to have been some insecure male couch potato who wrote it.
Or just someone with an opinion. I don't know if I agree with him or not, but he seems to be taking the issue seriously and using the best reasoning he can.
Stalking me now eh?
No -- it's not really that much of a coincidence. I was actually going to reply to your post much earlier but decided not to.
But I have no interest in your reply.
Of course you don't.
Jul 24, 2014
0
#77
Jamie, your Post #29 article was a really nice overview of the state of research in the field in 2001, giving some sense of the complexities involved.
I'll guarantee you that even if we added in all the subsequent research findings, we'd reach the same conclusion: everything we know about the interactions between gender and biology and environment constitute a miniscule proportion of what we'd need to know to definitively answer the question about women and chess.
Jul 24, 2014
0
#79
What about those hoards of teenaged boys who gather on the sidewalks outside chess tournaments and start shrieking in unison at the sight of a Polgar sister?! Did you forget about them?!
Yeah, compare them to a donkey. Just ignore all of the beauty going on in their (strong chess players) head. That's a lot you have to ignore.
I'm also against people insisting they are intelligent just because they play chess well.
Yes, I actually hold both of those views; people think we have to choose one or the other for some reason :) People should just appreciate the achievement, and chess players should appreciate the achievements of others. Everyone has their own merits. There. No fight. But of course, that's too boring, right :)
i think "boys are more intrested in chess than girls"